Radj Gervais

Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Chemotherapy

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients had a performance status 0 to 2, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC, and adequate organ function. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) day 1 with vitamin B(12), folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) i.v. day 1 with dexamethasone every 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS Five hundred seventy-one patients were randomly assigned. Overall response rates were 9.1% and 8.8% (analysis of variance P =.105) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months for each arm, and median survival time was 8.3 versus 7.9 months (P = not significant) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. The 1-year survival rate for each arm was 29.7%. Patients receiving docetaxel were more likely to have grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P <.001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P <.001), neutropenia with infections (3.3% v 0.0%; P =.004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P <.001), hospitalizations due to other drug related adverse events (10.5% v 6.4%; P =.092), use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (19.2% v 2.6%, P <.001) and all grade alopecia (37.7% v 6.4%; P <.001) compared with patients receiving pemetrexed. CONCLUSION Treatment with pemetrexed resulted in clinically equivalent efficacy outcomes, but with significantly fewer side effects compared with docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and should be considered a standard treatment option for second-line NSCLC when available.

Gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (INTEREST): a randomised phase III trial

BACKGROUND Two phase II trials in patients with previously-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer suggested that gefitinib was efficacious and less toxic than was chemotherapy. We compared gefitinib with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer who had been pretreated with platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS We undertook an open-label phase III study with recruitment between March 1, 2004, and Feb 17, 2006, at 149 centres in 24 countries. 1466 patients with pretreated (>/=one platinum-based regimen) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned with dynamic balancing to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day orally; n=733) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously in 1-h infusion every 3 weeks; n=733). The primary objective was to compare overall survival between the groups with co-primary analyses to assess non-inferiority in the overall per-protocol population and superiority in patients with high epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-gene-copy number in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00076388. FINDINGS 1433 patients were analysed per protocol (723 in gefitinib group and 710 in docetaxel group). Non-inferiority of gefitinib compared with docetaxel was confirmed for overall survival (593 vs 576 events; hazard ratio [HR] 1.020, 96% CI 0.905-1.150, meeting the predefined non-inferiority criterion; median survival 7.6 vs 8.0 months). Superiority of gefitinib in patients with high EGFR-gene-copy number (85 vs 89 patients) was not proven (72 vs 71 events; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78-1.51; p=0.62; median survival 8.4 vs 7.5 months). In the gefitinib group, the most common adverse events were rash or acne (360 [49%] vs 73 [10%]) and diarrhoea (255 [35%] vs 177 [25%]); whereas in the docetaxel group, neutropenia (35 [5%] vs 514 [74%]), asthenic disorders (182 [25%] vs 334 [47%]), and alopecia (23 [3%] vs 254 [36%]) were most common. INTERPRETATION INTEREST established non-inferior survival of gefitinib compared with docetaxel, suggesting that gefitinib is a valid treatment for pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Molecular predictors of outcome with gefitinib and docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer: data from the randomized phase III INTEREST trial.

PURPOSE In the phase III INTEREST trial, 1,466 pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to receive gefitinib or docetaxel. As a preplanned analysis, we prospectively analyzed available tumor biopsies to investigate the relationship between biomarkers and clinical outcomes. METHODS Biomarkers included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (374 assessable samples), EGFR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (n = 380), and EGFR (n = 297) and KRAS (n = 275) mutations. Results For all biomarker subgroups analyzed, survival was similar for gefitinib and docetaxel, with no statistically significant differences between treatments and no significant treatment by biomarker status interaction tests. EGFR mutation-positive patients had longer progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.49; P = .001) and higher objective response rate (ORR; 42.1% v 21.1%; P = .04), and patients with high EGFR copy number had higher ORR (13.0% v 7.4%; P = .04) with gefitinib versus docetaxel. CONCLUSION These biomarkers do not appear to be predictive factors for differential survival between gefitinib and docetaxel in this setting of previously treated patients; however, subsequent treatments may have influenced the survival results. For secondary end points of PFS and ORR, some advantages for gefitinib over docetaxel were seen in EGFR mutation-positive and high EGFR copy number patients. There was no statistically significant difference between gefitinib and docetaxel in biomarker-negative patients. This suggests gefitinib can provide similar overall survival to docetaxel in patients across a broad range of clinical subgroups and that EGFR biomarkers such as mutation status may additionally identify which patients are likely to gain greatest PFS and ORR benefit from gefitinib.

Bevacizumab for newly diagnosed pleural mesothelioma in the Mesothelioma Avastin Cisplatin Pemetrexed Study (MAPS): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer with poor prognosis, linked to occupational asbestos exposure. Vascular endothelial growth factor is a key mitogen for malignant pleural mesothelioma cells, therefore targeting of vascular endothelial growth factor might prove effective. We aimed to assess the effect on survival of bevacizumab when added to the present standard of care, cisplatin plus pemetrexed, as first-line treatment of advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-75 years with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma who had not received previous chemotherapy, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, had no substantial cardiovascular comorbidity, were not amenable to curative surgery, had at least one evaluable (pleural effusion) or measurable (pleural tumour solid thickening) lesion with CT, and a life expectancy of >12 weeks from 73 hospitals in France. Exclusion criteria were presence of central nervous system metastases, use of antiaggregant treatments (aspirin ≥325 mg per day, clopidogrel, ticlopidine, or dipyridamole), anti-vitamin K drugs at a curative dose, treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin at a curative dose, and treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1; minimisation method used [random factor of 0·8]; patients stratified by histology [epithelioid vs sarcomatoid or mixed histology subtypes], performance status score [0-1 vs 2], study centre, or smoking status [never smokers vs smokers]) to receive intravenously 500 mg/m(2) pemetrexed plus 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin with (PCB) or without (PC) 15 mg/kg bevacizumab in 21 day cycles for up to six cycles, until progression or toxic effects. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) in the intention-to treat population. Treatment was open label. This IFCT-GFPC-0701 trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00651456. FINDINGS From Feb 13, 2008, to Jan 5, 2014, we randomly assigned 448 patients to treatment (223 [50%] to PCB and 225 [50%] to PC). OS was significantly longer with PCB (median 18·8 months [95% CI 15·9-22·6]) than with PC (16·1 months [14·0-17·9]; hazard ratio 0·77 [0·62-0·95]; p=0·0167). Overall, 158 (71%) of 222 patients given PCB and 139 (62%) of 224 patients given PC had grade 3-4 adverse events. We noted more grade 3 or higher hypertension (51 [23%] of 222 vs 0) and thrombotic events (13 [6%] of 222 vs 2 [1%] of 224) with PCB than with PC. INTERPRETATION Addition of bevacizumab to pemetrexed plus cisplatin significantly improved OS in malignant pleural mesothelioma at the cost of expected manageable toxic effects, therefore it should be considered as a suitable treatment for the disease. FUNDING Intergroupe Francophone de Cancérologie Thoracique (IFCT).

Randomized, Phase III Study of Gemcitabine or Erlotinib Maintenance Therapy Versus Observation, With Predefined Second-Line Treatment, After Cisplatin-Gemcitabine Induction Chemotherapy in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE This phase III study investigated whether continuation maintenance with gemcitabine or switch maintenance with erlotinib improves clinical outcome compared with observation in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease was controlled after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Four hundred sixty-four patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC without tumor progression after four cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine were randomly assigned to observation or to gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle) or daily erlotinib (150 mg/day) study arms. On disease progression, patients in all three arms received pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) once every 21 days) as predefined second-line therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS PFS was significantly prolonged by gemcitabine (median, 3.8 v 1.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.72; log-rank P < .001) and erlotinib (median, 2.9 v 1.9 months; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88; log-rank P = .003) versus observation; this benefit was consistent across all clinical subgroups. Both maintenance strategies resulted in a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival (OS); patients who received second-line pemetrexed or with a performance status of 0 appeared to derive greater benefit. Exploratory analysis showed that magnitude of response to induction chemotherapy may affect the OS benefit as a result of gemcitabine maintenance. Maintenance gemcitabine and erlotinib were well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSION Gemcitabine continuation maintenance or erlotinib switch maintenance significantly reduces disease progression in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with cisplatin-gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy. Response to induction chemotherapy may affect OS only for continuation maintenance.

Phase III Study Comparing Oral Topotecan to Intravenous Docetaxel in Patients With Pretreated Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE This open-label, randomized, multicenter, phase III study compared oral topotecan versus intravenous (IV) docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC, performance status < or = 2, who had received only one prior chemotherapy regimen, were randomly assigned to treatment with oral topotecan 2.3 mg/m2/d on days 1 to 5 or IV docetaxel 75 mg/m2 day 1 every 21 days. RESULTS A total of 829 patients were randomly assigned. In intent-to-treat analysis, 1-year survival rates were 25.1% with topotecan and 28.7% with docetaxel. The difference of -3.6% (95% CI, -9.59% to 2.48%) met the predefined criteria for noninferiority of topotecan relative to docetaxel because the lower limit of the 95% CI was above -10%. Median survival was 27.9 weeks with topotecan and 30.7 weeks with docetaxel. Although not statistically significant (log-rank P = .057), the higher survival rate with docetaxel was maintained across the entire treatment period. The median time to progression was 11.3 weeks with topotecan versus 13.1 weeks with docetaxel (log-rank P = .02). The overall response rate was 5% in each group. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred more frequently with docetaxel (60% v 50%). Grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently with topotecan (26% v 10% and 26% v 7%, respectively). CONCLUSION Oral topotecan provides activity in the treatment of relapsed, locally advanced, unresectable NSCLC. Both regimens were well tolerated with differing safety profiles. Topotecan may provide an option for patients who desire an orally available treatment after relapse.

Pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with asymptomatic inoperable brain metastases: a multicenter phase II trial (GFPC 07-01)

BACKGROUND Brain metastases (BM) occur in up to 40% of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. This trial assessed the safety and efficacy of pemetrexed-cisplatin in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS Chemonaive NSCLC patients with BM ineligible for (radio)surgery, performance status (PS) of 0 to 2, were eligible for up to six cycles of cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Whole -brain radiotherapy was given in case of disease progression or at chemotherapy completion. Primary end point was objective response rate (RR) on BM. Secondary end points included extracerebral and overall RR, safety profile and survival. RESULTS Forty-three patients were enrolled. Initial characteristics were mean age 60.4 years; males 29; PS: 0 in 37.2%, 1 in 60.5% and 2 in 22.3% of patients; adenocarcinoma in 36 patients, large cell in 4 patients (nonsquamous, 93%) and squamous carcinoma in 3 patients. Functional classification of neurological status was stage I/II 86.0%, III 2.3% and IV 11.6%. Grade 3-4 hematological toxic effects were neutropenia, 11 patients (febrile neutropenia, 1 patient), and anemia, 6 patients. Non-hematological toxic effects were grade 2 urinary infection, one patient; grade 3 pneumonia, two patients; and grade 3 hypoacousia, one patient. Cerebral, extracerebral and overall RR by intent to treat analysis were 41.9%, 34.9% and 34.9%, respectively. Median survival time and time to progression were 7.4 and 4.0 months, respectively. CONCLUSION Pemetrexed-cisplatin is an effective and well-tolerated regimen as first-line therapy for NSCLC patients with BM who always suffer a poor prognosis.

Noninvasive diagnosis of actionable mutations by deep sequencing of circulating free DNA in lung cancer from never-smokers: a proof-of-concept study from BioCAST/IFCT-1002.

Purpose: Tumor somatic mutation analysis is part of the standard management of metastatic lung cancer. However, physicians often have to deal with small biopsies and consequently with challenging mutation testing. Circulating free DNA (cfDNA) is a promising tool for accessing the tumor genome as a liquid biopsy. Here, we evaluated next-generation sequencing (NGS) on cfDNA samples obtained from a consecutive series of patients for the screening of a range of clinically relevant mutations. Experimental Design: A total of 107 plasma samples were collected from the BioCAST/IFCT-1002 lung cancer study (never-smokers cohort). Matched tumor DNA (tDNA) was obtained for 68 cases. Multiplex PCR-based assays were designed to target specific coding regions in EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, ERBB2, and PI3KCA genes, and amplicon sequencing was performed at deep coverage on the cfDNA/tDNA pairs using the NGS IonTorrent Personal Genome Machine Platform. Results: CfDNA concentration in plasma was significantly associated with both stage and number of metastatic sites. In tDNA, 50 mutations (36 EGFR, 5 ERBB2, 4 KRAS, 3 BRAF, and 2 PIK3CA) were identified, of which 26 were detected in cfDNA. Sensitivity of the test was 58% (95% confidence interval, 43%–71%) and the estimated specificity was 87% (62%–96%). Conclusion: These data demonstrate the feasibility and potential utility of mutation screening in cfDNA using IonTorrent NGS for the detection of a range of tumor biomarkers in patients with metastatic lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 20(17); 4613–24. ©2014 AACR.

Association of EGFR L858R Mutation in Circulating Free DNA With Survival in the EURTAC Trial

IMPORTANCE The EURTAC trial demonstrated the greater efficacy of erlotinib compared with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of European patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring oncogenic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) in tumor tissue. OBJECTIVE To assess the feasibility of using circulating free DNA (cfDNA) from blood samples as a surrogate for tumor biopsy for determining EGFR mutation status and to correlate EGFR mutations in cfDNA with outcome. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prespecified analysis was a secondary objective of the EURTAC trial using patients included in the EURTAC trial from 2007 to 2011 with available baseline serum or plasma samples. Patients had advanced NSCLC, oncogenic EGFR mutations in the tumor, and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease and were treated with erlotinib or chemotherapy. EGFR mutations were examined in cfDNA isolated from 97 baseline blood samples by our novel peptide nucleic acid-mediated 5´ nuclease real-time polymerase chain reaction (TaqMan) assay. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and response to therapy were correlated with type of EGFR mutations in cfDNA. RESULTS In samples from 76 of 97 (78%) patients with usable blood samples, EGFR mutations in cfDNA were detected. Median OS was shorter in patients with the L858R mutation in cfDNA than in those with the exon 19 deletion (13.7 [95% CI, 7.1-17.7] vs 30.0 [95% CI, 19.3-37.7] months; P < .001). Univariate analyses of patients with EGFR mutations in cfDNA identified the L858R mutation in tumor tissue or in cfDNA as a marker of shorter OS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.70 [95% CI, 1.60-4.56]; P < .001) and PFS (HR, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.20-3.48]; P = .008). For patients with the L858R mutation in tissue, median OS was 13.7 (95% CI, 7.1-17.7) months for patients with the L858R mutation in cfDNA and 27.7 (95% CI, 16.1-46.2) months for those in whom the mutation was not detected in cfDNA (HR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.09-4.52]; P = .03). In the multivariate analysis of the 76 patients with EGFR mutations in cfDNA, only erlotinib treatment remained an independent predictor of longer PFS (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23-0.74]; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The peptide nucleic acid-mediated 5´ nuclease real-time polymerase chain reaction (TaqMan) assay used in this study can be used to efficiently assess EGFR mutations in cfDNA. The L858R mutation in cfDNA may be a novel surrogate prognostic marker. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00446225.

PRS-02: Gefitinib (IRESSA) versus docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer pre-treated with platinum-based chemotherapy: a randomized, open-label Phase III study (INTEREST)

Clinical trials and biostatistics workshop: introduction and overview Crowley, John Cancer Research And Biostatistics, Seattle, WA, USA This unique workshop was designed to bring together clinicians and statisticians to discuss current problems and potential solutions to issues in the design and analysis of lung cancer clinical trials and translational science. Each of the afternoon sessions pairs an oncologist with a biostatistician (some also have a formal discussant) to present a particular issue and approach. Two evening panels explore opportunities for lung cancer trials in Asia, and different models for clinical trial conduct. Many of the current issues arise because of the development of newer, targeted therapies. The traditional phase II endpoint of tumor shrinkage may no longer be appropriate in such settings, and there may not be good historical data on newer endpoints such as disease control rate, so new phase II and phase II/III designs are needed. In addition, the degree to which therapies are targeted (and targets can be measured) has implications for the design of phase III trials. The ability to measure thousands of gene expression levels, gene variants or gene products brings with it the challenge of sorting through these high dimensional data sets to identify which patients will benefit from particular therapies. The goal is to use genetic characteristics of the tumor and/or the host to tailor therapy. Finally, the hope persists that the patient’s immune system can be enhanced and used to fight cancer. This field of immunotherapy also raises particular issues of clinical trial design.